SC Democratic Party reacts to complaints, drops oath in primary

COLUMBIA, S.C. - The South Carolina Democratic Party dropped a controversial voter oath requirement just hours before the state's first-in-the-South presidential primary because phones were "ringing off the hook" with complaints, party Chairman Joe Erwin said Monday.

"There's confusion, and confusion's not a good thing," Erwin said.

Voters going to the polls Tuesday were supposed to sign an oath that read: "I consider myself to be a Democrat" - a statement that could have kept some independents and even Republicans from participating.

Just two hours before announcing the switch, Erwin told a local television station that the oath would keep Republicans from making "mischief" in the primary. South Carolina doesn't require voters to register with party affiliation, so crossover voting is allowed.

But by mid-afternoon, Erwin announced the Democrats had decided to drop the pledge so as not to deter any voters "disgruntled" with the Bush administration from casting a ballot for a Democratic candidate.

"We have made the decision, we are dropping the oath," Erwin said.

He said the party's voter action hotline had been "ringing off the hook" with complaints. "We have been hearing from people all over the state," the chairman said.

Erwin said the oath was dropped after discussions with party lawyers in Washington and members of the Democratic National Committee.

He defended the oath, saying it has been part of Democratic process in South Carolina since 1976. However, the pledge hasn't been used recently because the state party has nominated presidential candidates through caucuses rather than primaries during the past few election cycles.

Carol Khare, state party vice chairwoman and a member of the DNC Rules Committee, said the wording in the oath was that of the South Carolina party and that it was an attempt to comply with DNC rules that require the state party to ensure Democrats are able to vote.

"Evidently, just signing a voter registration book or just requesting a Democratic ballot is enough to comply," Khare said.

Alex Mumford, Greenville County party chairman, said dropping the oath "was what we should have done in the first place."

"We are totally open as a party. You are a voter, and that's that. That's the law in South Carolina," he said.

If anyone signed the oath to vote by absentee ballot, Mumford said he expected "that information will be shredded."

State GOP Chairman Katon Dawson issued a statement lauding the Democrats' reversal, calling the oath "a painful reminder of the hateful politics of the past. ... The last thing anyone would want was for our state to take a step backwards."

Before Erwin's announcement, Columbia voters asked about the issue expressed a wide variety of views.

"I don't like it, but I'll do it in order to vote. I hope it won't keep other people from voting," said Dottie Munsch, who described herself as "basically a Democrat, but one with an open mind to any candidate."

Dr. Ozzie Shuler, a University of South Carolina pediatric cardiologist, called the oath "silly." Shuler, who said he's an independent, said he had not yet decided whether he would vote. "I'll probably decide tomorrow," he said.

His lunch mate, Dr. Luther Williams, said he was a Republican and had no intention of voting in the Democratic primary. "I question the legality of it (the pledge). ... I think it smacks of poll taxes and literacy tests," Williams said.

Claude Brownlee, a retiree opening a local restaurant, said he planned to vote but was so unhappy with the oath that it would keep him from the voting booth. "I don't think it's right. I think it's kind of scary. ... People should be free to vote without having to worry about it," he said.

Danielle Vinson, a political scientist at Furman University, said the insertion of the pledge was counter to the course of elections in South Carolina, which have been marked by various candidates attempting to woo independent and moderate voters.

"To then tell people you have to pledge your loyalty to the Democratic Party kind of undermines that," Vinson said. "I think voters have a different sense of party than they did 30 years ago. These days voters have a much more transient view of what party identification means."